[38161] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: QOS or more bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Tue May 29 15:22:28 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56CB8008@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'smd@clock.org'" <smd@clock.org>, nanog@merit.edu, rja@inet.org
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:11:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: smd@clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org]
> |Prabhu Kavi writes:
> | Someone asked earlier in this thread if it was cheaper to add
> | capacity or pay for the bright engineers to make TE or QoS work.
> | For large carriers, the right answer is often to pay for the
> | bright engineers.
>
> Admittedly I have strong biases, but the engineers that I think
> are bright will tell large carriers that the right answer is to
> spend money on more capacity.
>
Sounds like we know different sets of bright engineers. My biases
are that I worked for a Layer 2 switch vendor at the time, and
our IP customers were primarily large ISPs.
> What "we" believed in 1995-1997 about ATM cell tax and the like
> is no longer valid. Neither is what "they" believed about traffic
> management.
ATM is a tool. Some carriers used this tool in 95-97 for line-rate
OC-12 forwarding and TE. Line-rate forwarding at OC-48+ rates
is no longer an issue, and TE is available with MPLS, so ATM is
not a very useful for IP traffic these days. However, TE is
still a necessary tool for some carriers because "they" know it
makes better financial sense for them than adding bandwidth. Your
mileage may vary.
Prabhu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125
Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671
Tenor Networks Email: prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com
100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com
Acton, MA 01720
